Bo 5777: Memory Cards for the Mind; Power Packs for the Arm–For Women and for Men

Chapter 12 of Exodus introduces Israel to the rituals (setting their sacred calendar and the Pesah rite) that will attend their exodus from Egypt. Chapter 13 shifts perspective to the future reenactment of this formative event, declaring that firstborn sons and also animals owned by Israelites will forever be associated with the sparing of Israel in the tenth plague. In addition, the Torah speaks somewhat cryptically about a ritual reminder of God’s mighty hand, to be placed on the arm and head: “Place a sign on the hand and a memory between the eyes so that the Lord’s instruction will be in your mouth; for with a mighty hand the Lord removed you from Egypt.” This is the first of four references, two in Exodus and two in Deuteronomy, which led the rabbis to design tefillin with the four passages contained within the head and hand compartments.

Although the Torah itself does not designate the mechanics of this commandment (should the words perhaps be tattooed on the arm and head?), Jewish oral tradition developed specifications which the sages declared were all “from Sinai.” They used these verses to clarify many questions about the tefillin—may they be made from the hide of any animal, or only a kosher one which could go “in your mouth”? May they be worn at night? On Shabbat and festivals? On the top of the arm or down on the hand? Hidden, or visible? The dominant hand or the weaker one? Round or square? Black or colorful? Each of these questions is discussed in rabbinic texts such as Midrash Mekhilta D’Rabbi Ishmael and the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai, as well as in the Talmud, especially in Bavli Menahot 32-44. Tefillin are praised extravagantly as a sign of divine glory placed on the Israelite head, as a mitzvah to equal all mitzvoth, and according to Reish Lakish, as a guarantor of long life.

For all of their praise of tefillin, the Sages of Israel decided that for women, they were not required. In Mishnah Brakhot 3:3, the Rabbis declare that women, like slaves and minors, are exempt from the mitzvah of tefillin, though they are obligated by the mitzvoth of prayer, mezuzah and blessing after meals. Already in the Mekhilta, this distinction is explained by means of the concept of “positive, time-bound commandments.” A positive commandment such as saying blessings after a meal which can be done at any time is considered to be obligatory for women as for men. But a time-limited commandment such as reciting Shema (done only in the morning and evening) and wearing tefillin (not done at night or on Shabbat) is considered to be optional for women. There are many exceptions to this rule (lighting Shabbat candles, reading megillah and more), but the principle is well known and frequently cited to support gender distinctions in Jewish practice.

Our teacher Rabbi/Dr. Judith Hauptman provides a sociological explanation for this distinction. In the world of the ancient rabbis, women were like domestic servants—under the command of the men in their lives—and therefore they could not be expected to serve God on a tight schedule. In Rereading the Rabbis, Dr. Hauptman added a corollary—in a society where women are not considered to be legally subservient to men, their exemption from positive, time-bound commandments no longer makes sense. The rabbinic construction of “nashim” (women) does not apply to modern women, who are educated, legally competent and fully free citizens. As such, women’s exemption from the mitzvah of tefillin and similar commandments has expired, at least in modern society.

Dr. Elizabeth Shanks Alexander raises the important question of whether the rabbinic exemption of women from positive, time-bound commands, should be understood as prescriptive or as descriptive. In an article from JQR 97:3 (2007), she asks, “whether the rule aspired to shape social reality, or social reality shaped the rule.” She argues that this dichotomy may be overly simplistic, and that the rabbinic texts about gender may be understood more as an academic exercise than as a concerted effort by the sages to determine how women should organize their time. That said, the rabbinic formulation did eventually have normative consequences. As she concludes, “Though the rule did eventually become an important vehicle for stabilizing and perpetuating particular roles for women (especially their prominence in the home and their absence in the synagogue), it is important to recognize that we have no direct evidence to support the claim that the rabbis who formulated the rule intended for it to have this outcome.”

Indeed, the exemption had a long lasting and profound impact. The exclusion of women from this deeply symbolic ritual reduced their status as members of the covenant. Halakhic texts went beyond exempting women to discouraging them, and some added deeply misogynistic rationalizations, such as that women are incapable of keeping their bodies clean enough to be entrusted with the proximity of flesh to divine word (see Shulhan Arukh commentaries to OH 38 below). This gender-based disparagement is discernible in the continued discrimination against women as religious actors and leaders, as for example in this week’s declaration by the Orthodox Union that women are excluded from “serving as clergy” in any of their 400 affiliated congregations based upon a new rabbinic ruling (which quotes Rabbi Soloveitchik in describing women as metaphysically and psychically different from men, but “not inferior” p.11).

At JTS the egalitarian impulse took shape over 35 years ago with reference to the old exemption of women from such rituals, which was understood itself to be a time-bound principle. Some, like Rabbi Joel Roth, argued that women should be invited to “opt-out” of their classical exemption, and in accepting these commandments, become identical to men in both their obligations and their rights. This policy had the advantage of not “turning Bubbe into a sinner,” but maintained the default exemption and thus exclusion of women from the minyan and associated functions. Others, like Rabbi Mayer Rabinowitz and Rabbi Hautpman, felt that the core ritual obligations for women always existed, and it was only the temporary circumstances of antiquity that prevented women from serving God fully as intended. Contemporary reality allowed the original intention of equal obligation to emerge. More recently, Rabbi Pamela Barmash has argued that a truly egalitarian ethic would close off the possibility of women claiming an exemption from these mitzvoth. While most contemporary Jews behave as if the mitzvoth are optional, in fact they are obligatory for women as they are for men.

Our educational challenge in schools, camps and synagogues is to dissipate the distinction so that all Jews who reach majority will understand themselves and be viewed by others as commanded by God, and as full members of the covenant. Tefillin are a sign of both prayer and of Torah study. Our verse from Parshat Bo emphasizes that the tefillin are designed to place the Lord’s word in our mouth, and to keep the sacred memory of the exodus between our eyes. To wear tefillin is to bind oneself, in body, mind and spirit, to the sacred words of Torah, and to draw strength from the “might hand” of God, filling us with wisdom and courage to pursue justice in a very broken world. Just as Moses said in his inclusive statement to Pharaoh, we need all of us—regardless of body type, ancestry or identity—all members of the covenant, to practice the mitzvoth, to serve God, and to pursue the divine agenda of bringing justice and compassion to the world.